Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You wrote "for anyone receiving public assistance," but okay..., the further definition and/or clarification helps.
Still curious how your "solution" works, say for someone unemployed that gets food stamp assistance...
I assume this law needs to apply equally to the men just like the women, right? How does that work?
Same with welfare or Section 8...
Curious as well, is there a number of children that is acceptable before your birth control requirements are imposed? What is that number, why, and how is that decided?
You also have not yet clarified what you mean by "long term" birth control. What is that exactly?
Many of these people go to-and-from public assistance programs over the course of months.
Can't wait to hear how all this works from a practical standpoint rather than what I fear might just be more conservative fantasy wishful thinking...
Unemployment isn't really public assistance. It works like Medicare and SS. Premiums are paid for unemployment insurance, just like premiums are paid for decades for Medicare and SS (FICA: Federal Insurance Contributions Act).
As for the rest... Pretty simple... No welfare benefits unless one uses long-term contraceptives.
Our country simply cannot support an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class. Remember, as I've already posted, women who receive public assistance (the various means-tested welfare programs for which NO premiums are collected), as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. 70% of those kids will never rise above poverty level and will need welfare for life. It's simply mathematically unsustainable.
Unemployment isn't really public assistance. It works like Medicare and SS. Premiums are paid for unemployment insurance, just like premiums are paid for decades for Medicare and SS (FICA: Federal Insurance Contributions Act).
As for the rest... Pretty simple... No welfare benefits unless one uses long-term contraceptives.
Our country simply cannot support an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class. Remember, as I've already posted, women who receive public assistance (the various means-tested welfare programs for which NO premiums are collected), as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. 70% of those kids will never rise above poverty level and will need welfare for life. It's simply mathematically unsustainable.
As one who has paid a "pretty penny" into the UI fund, I am amused at the explanation, but if you don't want to call that public assistance, again..., no matter, as I commented before.
You do a good job of pointing at what we "can't do," but you don't answer the questions about what we CAN do, or what you think we can do.
IOWs, you are quite long on unnecessary explanation, but altogether short on any real practical solutions.
Belly aching is easy. How to get rid of the belly ache is the important part!
As one who has paid a "pretty penny" into the UI fund, I am amused at the explanation, but if you don't want to call that public assistance, again..., no matter, as I commented before.
Even the federal government calls it INSURANCE. Just like they do FICA. Because premiums are charged for eligibility for benefits for all 3 programs (UI, SS, Medicare).
Tell me... what are the premiums charged for eligibility for food stamps? Section 8? Medicaid? Welfare?...
None. They're NOT insurance. They're freebie welfare hand-out programs.
Quote:
Belly aching is easy. How to get rid of the belly ache is the important part!
I've already suggested, and so have many others... long-term birth control required for public assistance welfare programs eligibility.
If they were good decision makers, they wouldn't be poor in the first place/ thread
You're basically asking why stupid irresponsible people do stupid irresponsible ****.
It's because they're stupid and irresponsible.
Without the help of society these individual's children would simply die in most cases, but since we take care of these people, there are virtually no consequences for their actions.
The downside of this is the notion that our gen pool that has been controlled by natuall selection since our beginning is being heavily polluted with inferior genes. The result is the inevitability that humans are devolving by becoming less intelligent as a collective whole.
This is the premise behind the movie "Idiocracy" with Luke Wilson. LOL
I do find it unfortunate that so many people have so many kids they can't afford. Too bad there are so many out there who would ban abortions and defund Planned parenthood and other organizations designed to assist people in learning about reproductive responsibility, providing birth control, etc.
Then again, it seems most people who are anti-choice when it comes to the private, individual reproductive rights of citizens are also the same people who rail against social programs designed to educate people and assist the poor. I'd call it irony, but really it is hypocrisy.
The thing that really gets me, though, is that people get so riled up about these social programs. Things like food stamps and TANF and day care assistance cost the average American taxpayer around $30-40 per year. Meanwhile we are paying several orders of magnitude MORE for corporate welfare--bailouts, subsidies, enticements and entitlements, tax breaks, tax loopholes, etc. for hugely profitable companies who, whenever possible, take jobs offshore for cheaper labor, underpay their workers and shelter their profits so they pay little to no taxes (some major corporations essentially pay negative taxes while they are raking in tens of billions per year. Don't even get me started on Wall Street where the American taxpayers are on the hook to pay off 5 TRILLION dollars.
But no, people rarely whine and gripe about that. About their money being forcibly shelled out to the wealthiest organizations in the world.
Instead, they demonize immigrants, the working poor, the single mothers who need food stamps to provide for their children. Yeah, they are the enemy. *rolls eyes*
Both groups have problems. People should be making better choices and the way we coddle and subsidize these rich corporations is sick and disgusting.
Even the federal government calls it INSURANCE. Just like they do FICA. Because premiums are charged for eligibility for benefits for all 3 programs (UI, SS, Medicare).
Oh for the love of being stubborn, I already tried to make the point that UI is not the real issue in focus here, but yes! Of course UI -- stands for "unemployment insurance." Thanks again for the waste of lesson and time.
If you insist, however, regardless the name of this system given by our government it is not an insurance program in the classic more typical sense. In fact, most people who collect UI have not contributed any funds toward that "insurance," so despite the title, is that more an insurance program or a social assistance program? I think the latter...
Created in 1935, it is a form of social insurance in which taxes collected from employers are paid into the system on behalf of working people to provide them with income support if they lose their jobs. The system also helps sustain consumer demand during economic downturns by providing a continuing stream of dollars for families to spend.
Call it what you like, of course, as you will, but please don't bother to offer more lesson on this subject. Back to your epiphany about requiring "long term birth control" for "for anyone receiving public assistance..."
You claim that's the simple answer, but you don't explain how it works in detail, and of course we all know that's where the Devil likes to hang out. More to the practical matter of making public policy, if your legislation falls apart because of the details or lack thereof, it doesn't get passed into law. What sort of solution is that?
Oh for the love of being stubborn, I already tried to make the point that UI is not the real issue in focus here, but yes! Of course UI -- stands for "unemployment insurance." Thanks again for the waste of lesson and time.
If you insist, however, regardless the name of this system given by our government it is not an insurance program in the classic more typical sense. In fact, most people who collect UI have not contributed any funds toward that "insurance," so despite the title, is that more an insurance program or a social assistance program?
Their employers pay it. Just like they pay the employer's portion of FICA for each employee. The point is ALL 3 PROGRAMS (UI, SS, Medicare) require premiums (in the form of taxes) that must be paid for eligibility for benefits (unlike the means-tested public assistance social welfare programs which require no premiums or contributions whatsoever be paid for eligibility to receive benefits: food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8, Welfare, etc.). The employer's expense of UI and FICA are all included in the cost of hiring and keeping an employee. How do you not know that?
Quote:
"...employers must pay both state and Federal unemployment taxes if: (1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1,500, or more, in any quarter of a calendar year; or, (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether or not the weeks were consecutive"
This is a serious question. Why do poor people have so many kids, knowing that they can't even afford the first one? Why can't people be more responsible and hold off on having kids until they can provide better lives for them? Isn't that somewhat selfish on the parents' behalf?
Because they having sex veezy! Why else do you think people are having children?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
